All systems using triggers, hit and run etc are based on the gambler's fallacy. If experienced system players really understood independence they wouldn't keep making the same basic mistake, system after system, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.Gambler's fallacy implies a tendency for balance
, if something appears more or less often than normal.
However, this is not the assumption a good system player makes. A good system does not aim to cash in, on the upcoming plethora of reds, if blacks happened to occur more often during a counting period. A good system aims for AT LEAST ONE FAVORABLE EVENT within a predetermined range of bets, and then stops.
How does this action fall under the gambler's fallacy, when that fallacy clearly refers to the wrong assumption that a balance is imminent? Aiming for at least one favorable event and stopping, under no circumstances falls under the umbrella of this fallacy. Because it has nothing to do with a balancing expectation.
A good system does not expect to hit, for example 8 blacks, if the reds appeared 8 more times than their statistical share in an observed period. That's what this fallacy implies.
Hitting at least one black before the system stops, has nothing to do with the fallacy you describe.
Then the obvious question is this.
What is the difference between the betting of 3 spins on red AT ANY TIME, expecting at least one hit before stopping, as compared to betting 3 spins on red after 4 or 5 or 6 black have been observed?
Well, theoretically, there shouldn't be any difference between the two scenarios, but empirically there is a difference that we all observe time after time.
We see a ton of groups of 3 identical results observed at any time, as opposed to seeing 3 identical results after
a series of the opposite results showed up first.
I am just curious how do you explain this phenomenon?